
FLS 

201 ' 


022224 




-»/.*/ «/. »: •• **••• •• /. 




: v ' '■ 


V ft l*.» *v •*.** 


a 


..... tj j 


f ;W S j 


i 

• V'*- ; •' 

• *v 

wtff.+sy 

y» / *i«»v • 

■ »fs* v»* 

w.->v.v' 




'i .* *«•« * 




t»-S* 


• •• • 











































Class L 3 L 


Book 


r 

'V 


* 




I j ~\ r\ 































































































































c~~ T ’~r 

MR. BAYARD’S SPEECH, 

\\ 

UPON 

HIS MOTION TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION 

OFFERED BY MR. GILES, 

BY STRICK1NG OUT THAT PART WHICH 
IS IN ITALICS. 

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
TUESDAY, FEBRUAJRY 14 , ig09. 


MR. GILES’ MOTION. 

41 Resolved, That the several laws laying an embargo on all ships 
and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, be re¬ 
pealed on the 4th day of March next, except as to Great Britain 
and France and thtir dependencies ; and that provision be made by 
law for prohibiting all commercial intercourse with those nations and 
their dependencies , and the importation oj any article into the United 
States , the growth , produce or manufacture of either of the said nations , 
or of the dominions of either of them 

IT will be perceived, Mr. President, by the motion which I 
have made to amend the resolution, offered by the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Virginia, that I do not approve of the course which it 
seems the government have determined at length to pursue. The 
honorable gentleman has told vis, it is not his plan, and I give him 
credit for the 'fairness and candor with which he has avowed the 
measures to which he would have resorted. He would have raised 
the embargo and declared war against England. Being opposed in 
this scheme, by a majority of his friends, his next proposition was 
to issue letters of marque and reprisal; finding however, that the 
other House had refused to go even so far, he had on the principle 
of concession and consiliation with his friends, agreed to take the 
course proposed in the resolution, in hopes that our vessels going 
upon the ocean and being captured under the orders in council, 
would drag the nation into a war; when he presumed the war be¬ 
ing made upon us, we would agree to fight our enemy. Sir, it is 
upon this very ground, and considering this as its object, that I am 
opposed to the resolution. England is not our enemy, not* does a 
nYr- sitv exist to make her so. I am not going to deny that we 




S~ / S'- 3 Z 






K 


have many, and heavy’complaints to make against her conduct, no* 
shall I contend that causes do not exist which might justify a war.; 
but I mean to say that policy forbids the measure, and that honor 
does not require it. 

The gentleman has painted in very glowing colors, the wrongs 
and insults which we have suffered from British violence ; he has 
recorded in his catalogue the offensive acts of British agents, as well 
as the injurious pretensions and orders of the government. 1 mean 
not to defend nor even to palliate any aggression, public or private, 
against the rights or honorof our country ; but, Sir, I cannot conceal 
my surprise, that this gentleman, so much alive to British wrongs, 
should be insensible to every thing which we have ^suffered from 
France. The gentleman has exhausted the language of terms of 
invective and reproach against the British government and nation, 
bui he nasbeen silent as the grave, as to the French. How can it 
be that what is wrong in Britain is right in France? And where¬ 
fore is it that the ne acts of France are borne with patience, which 
proceeding from Britain, excite such a spirit of indignation. You 
have the orders e. council to complain of, but have you not the 
decreets of his , . . serial majesty ? We are told that the orders in 
council give us -vs. regulate our commerce, and degrade us to 
the state of colou rs; but do they contain more, or do they extend 
far as tne imperial decrees ? Do they make us more the colo- 
of Britain, than the decrees make us the colonies of France? 
we to invoke the spirit of liberty and patriotism to a re- 
Britain, while we are tamely yielding ourselves to 
1: Bondage ? We are told of our vessels being forced into 

. ifts and compelled to pay tribute ; but nothing is said of 
ring mvited into French harbors, and then seized and con- 
:w.d. 

vith ail the complaints against the British orders, and the sl¬ 
ice as to French decrees, ought we not to be surprised in disco¬ 
vering that the orders are exceeded in severity and injustice by 
the decrees ? Let it be remembered that this system of outrage 
upon neutral rights originated on the part of France in the Berlin 
decree—that decree in effect, forbids neutrals to trade to England 
or iier colonies, or to purchase, or to carry their manufactures or 
produce. In commencing this system, France justified its/prin¬ 
ciple and compelled her adversary to retaliate by acts of the same 
injustice against neutrals who submitted to it. Tell me which 
we have first and most to blame, the one who set the example, or 
him who followed it? 

It is a consideration also of great weight, that at the time 
when the Berlin decree issused, France was bound to the United 
States by a solemn treaty to permit the trade which that decree 
prohibits—a treaty, signed by Bonaparte himself, and expressly 
providing for the freedom and security of our commerce with his 
enemy, in the event of war: and if the orders in council are a 
violation of the law of nations, they are not like the French de¬ 
crees, a breach of plighted faith. The orders leave to us the 


r* 

o 


direct colonial trade. Our intercourse is not interrupted with the 
colonies and dependencies of France; but the decrees interdict 
all neutral commerce with the colonies and dependencies of En 
land, as well as with the mother country. Your very ships, whit 
enter an English port, are denationalized, and are liable, after t 
lapse of any time, though performing a voyage otherwise 
cent, to seizure and contiscation. 

Another feature of injustice and iniquity distinguish 
crees from the orders. By the orders, our merchan 
prized of the commerce which is interdicted. Full 
lice of the prohibition is allowed, before the property is exposed, 
by a transgression of the orders, to be confiscated or seized. No 
such forbearance can be discovered in the decrees, which are to 
be indiscriminately executed upon the innocent and the guilty ; 
upon those who never heard, or could have heard of them in the 
same manner as upon those who knowingly violate them. 

I hope, Sir, it will not be understood that I mean to defend the 
orders in council, or to advise this nation to submit to them ; but 
I could wish to direct some portion of the warmth and indignation, 
which has been expressed against them, against those decrees 
which produced them, and which exceed them in iniquity and 
outrage. 

The avowed object of the honorable gentleman from Virginia— 
is a war with England. On this subject I make but one ques¬ 
tion—Is it possible to avoid it with honor? 

If this possibility exists, the war ought to be avoided. And it 
is my opinion that it does exist. To this opinion I am, in a great 
degree led by a want of confidence in the sincerity of the dispo¬ 
sition of our executive to settle our differences with Great Britain. 
Your measures have not been impartial as to the belligerents, and 
your negociations have not been sincere as to England. The gen¬ 
tleman from Virginia has called this charge of insincerity a mi¬ 
serable vision. I believe, Sir, it is a miserable and melancholy 
fact—and if you will have patience with me, 1 will furnish proof 
enough to support the belief of the most incredulous. 

I mean to shew, that your government has had it in its power 
to secure peace with Britain, by the settlement of the differences 
between the two nations, and that the means have not only been 
neglected, but means employed to prevent such a settlement from 
taking place. 

It will be necessary for us to consider what those differences 
were. 

They may be referred to three heads :— 

1st. The rule, as it is called, of the war of 1756. 

2d. Constructive blockades. 

3d. Impressment of seamen on board of American merchant 
vessels. 

I do not mean to say, that there were no other causes of com¬ 
plaint, arising from the indiscretions and insolence of British com¬ 
manders ; but they had not the character of national differences, 


i 


and would probably have soon ceased and been forgotten, if the 
points of controversy between the governments had been amica¬ 
bly arranged. To settle the differences, which I have stated* 
a negociation was opened in London in 1803, and carried on till 
December, 1806. It is remarkable, that while this negociation 
was depending and progressing, our government had recourse to 
a step in its nature calculated to repel, instead of to invite, the 
British government to a friendly settlement. In April, 1806, they 
pass a law prohibiting the importation of ceMain British goods. 
The acknowledged object of this law was to coerce Britain to 
agree to our own terms. Did this law evidence a disposition to 
be friendly upon our part; or was it calculated to inspire a friend¬ 
ly temper on the part of England ? 

It was fuel to the flame of discord; The British government 
is not less high spirited and proud than our own, and the attempt 
to force them to termS was the likeliest course which could have 
been pursued, by provoking retaliation to widen the breach be¬ 
tween the two countries. 

This measure enforced, when negociation was goitig On, and pro¬ 
mised a favorable result, is no small proof in my mind that the 
executive was satisfied with the forms of negociation, but wanted 
no treaty with England. 

I proceed to inquire whether our differences with Britain were 
not of a nature tb be compromised \ and if our government had 
been sincerely disposed, whether they might not have retained the 
relations of amity with that power. 

First, as to the rule Of 1756. This rule was founded on the 
principle, that a neutral nation could not acquire a right to trade 
by the cession of one belligerent in time of war which did not ex> 
ist, but was withheld in time of peace. The rule was supported 
on the principle that a neutral could not come in aid of a bellige¬ 
rent and cover its property on the ocean, when it was incapable of 
protecting it itself. 

I am not going to defend this rule, nor to inquire into its origin. 
Thus much I will say, that if it was the British rule of 1756, it 
was the express rule of the French maritime code in the years 
1704 and 1744. I will not trouble ybu with reading the decrees 
of the French monarchs which I have on the table, made in the 
years mentioned, and which prohibit to neutrals any but a direct 
trade to the colony of an enemy. Though the rule of 1756 may not 
be an ancient rule, yet we must admit that it was not a new rule 
introduced in the present war and contrived to ruin or injure the 
American commerce. 

France was unable to trade with her colonies ; the United States 
became her carriers, and under our flag the manufactures of the 
mother country were safely carried to the colonies and the pro¬ 
duce of the colonies transported to Europe. This trade was cer¬ 
tainly as beneficial to France as profitable to the United States;. 
Britain only was the sufferer, and the rule of 1756 was revived in 
order to take from French commerce the protection of a neutral 


dag. Our government were certainly right in claiming the free 
enjoyment of this profitable trade, but the only question is whether 
the neutral and belligerent pretension did not admit of adjustment 
by each side making an equal concession of points of interest. 

The treaty of 1806, which the President rejected, fairlv com¬ 
promised the dispute on this subject. The 11th art. of that treaty 
secured to the United States the carrying trade of France and her 
colonies, subject to terms somewhat inconvenient to the merchant, 
but rendering it not less beneficial to the nation. The treaty re¬ 
quires that goods exported from France or her colonies in Ame¬ 
rican vessels shall be entered and landed in the United States ; 
and when exported from France through the United States to her 
colonies, shall be liable to a duty of one per cent, and from the 
colonies to France of two per cent, to be paid into our own trea¬ 
sury. This regulation of benefit to the government by the duty 
which it gave to it was of little prejudice to the trade, and there 
is no room to doubt that the trade, thus secured from the spolia¬ 
tions to which it was before subject, would have flourished beyond 
its former limits. 

Our differences, therefore, as to the carrying trade so much 
harrassed by the British rule of 1756, not only admitted of com¬ 
promise, but was actually settled by an arrangement in the treaty 
of 1806, with which the nation would have been perfectly satisfied. 

The second head of dispute regards the practice of constructive 
blockade. The complaint on this subject was, that blockades were 
formed by proclamations, and that neutrals Wei’e compelled to 
consider ports as blockaded before which no force was stationed. 
That the principle of blockades was extended to unwarrantable 
limits, isjmost certainly true, and there is no question as to our 
having just cause to complain of the vexatious interruptions to 
which it exposed our trade. The present war between France and 
England is without a parallel between civilized nations ; it is not 
a struggle for renown or for ordinary conquest, but on the part of 
Britain for her independence and existence. Principles of neu¬ 
trality or of right have been little regarded upon the land or upon 
the ocean ; and the question with the belligerents has been less what 
the law of nations permitted them to do, than what their strength 
enabled them to accomplish. It is unlawful for a neutral to at¬ 
tempt to enter a blockaded port—but a port cannot be considered 
as blockaded unless a force adequate to the end is stationed be¬ 
fore it. The blockades therefore, which England created simply 
toy a proclamation, were an abuse of which neutrals had just cause 
to complain. 

The United States did complain, and these complaints were 
listened to by the British government. The 10th art. of the 
treaty of 1806, has made provision on the subject ; and though 
England has not renounced the principle of which we complain, 
yet it is qualified by the notice which is required to be given to 
the vessel attempting to enter a blockaded port, before she is ex¬ 
posed to seizure and confiscation.. The provision in the treaty, 


would no doubt have corrected in a considerable degree the abuse 
from which we had suffered, and it was our policy to have waited 
for better times for a completer remedy for the evil. 

But, Sir, the last head of dispute which I enumerated was 
made the chief and most important ground of complaint against 
the British government—I mean the searching American vessels 
for British seamen. The right claimed by England was to seize 
her own seamen on board our private vessels. The right to search 
a public vessel, or to seize an American sailor was never asserted 
by the government. The claim, however, which was insisted on, 
involved a point of equal interest and delicacy to both countries. 
There is nothing novel in the pretension, that a nation engaged 
in war had a right to recall her subjects from foreign countries or 
from foreign service to assist her in the war. 

Every nation in Europe has claimed and exercised the right# 
Our government has not denied it; but the consequences of the 
manner of exercising it have formed the ground of our complaint. 
Has a belligerent a right to search a neutral vessel for her seamen ? 

I should suppose not. This question between other nations is of 
small importance, between the United States and Britain, it is of 
great magnitude. 

The sameness of manners, habits, language and appearance ren¬ 
der it always difficult and sometimes impossible to distinguish 
between an English and an American sailor. If the right to 
search for British seamen were admitted, there would no longer 
be security for the American sailor: the right admitted, 1 have no 
doubt our navigation would be ruined. As an American therefore 
I would never concede the principle. Let us see however how 
the case stands in relation to Britain. Her navy is the shield of 
her salvation—whatever impairs its strength diminishes her pow¬ 
er and safety. Tenacious as she has ever been of personal liberty 
at home, yet when men are wanted for her fleets, the habeas cor¬ 
pus sleeps. Her sailors are her right arm which withers as she 
is deprived of them. From the seductions of our maritime ser¬ 
vice she has every thing to dread. Our merchants can give her 
seamen a dollar for every shilling which she is able to afford them. 

They shall be better fed, more gently treated, and exposed less 
to hardships and danger. Let them find a secure asylum on board 
our merchant ships, and how soon will the decks be thinned of the 
English ships of war. Which has the most at stake on this sub¬ 
ject, England or America ? I will not decide the question; but 
this is evident, that neither will ever unconditionally relinquish 
the principle for which she has contended. At the present crisis 
it was impossible for our government to expect the formal aban¬ 
donment by the British government, of this right of search. What 
course then should they have pursued ? They should have tempo¬ 
rised on the point, as Britain was willing to do, and waited for a 
more propitious epoch, for the final arrangement of the dispute. 

Your commissioners who negociated the treaty, found that it 
Vas impracticable to obtain the cession ef the principle for which 


7 


they contended, and upon their own responsibility, to their great 
honor, to preserve the peace of the two countries, accepted assur¬ 
ances from the British ministry, which, in their opinion, and I 
have no doubt in fact, would have effectually removed the abuses 
of which we complained. 1 beg pardon of the Senate for l eading 
an extract from the letter of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, of the 
3d of January, 1807, which contains the assurances to which I 
refer ; u we are sorry to add, that this treaty contains no provi¬ 
sion against the impressment of our seamen ; our despatch of the 
11th of November, communicated to you the result of our labors on 
that subject, and our opinion that although this government did 
not feel itself at liberty to relinquish formally by treaty, its claim 
to search our merchant vessels for British seamen, its practice 
would nevertheless be essentially , if not com/ilctely abandoned. That 
opinion has been sinde confirmed by frequent conferences on the 
subject with the British commissioners, who have repeatedly as¬ 
sured us, that in their judgment we were made as secure against 
the exercise of their pretensions, by the policy which their govern¬ 
ment had adopted in regard to that very delicate and important 
question, as we could have been made by treaty. It is proper to 
observe however, that the good effect of this disposition, and its 
continuance may depend in a great measure, on the means which 
may be taken by the Congress hereafter, to check desertions from 
the British service. If the treaty is ratified, and a perfect good 
understanding produced between the two nations, it will be easy 
for their governments by friendly communications, to state to 
each other wbat they respectively desire, and in that mode to ar¬ 
range the business as satisfactorily as it could be done by treaty.” 
Such was the footing upon which our commissioners were wisely 
disposed to leave this delicate affair. And would to God that our 
President wishing as sincerely as his friends profess for him, to 
accommodate the differences between the two countries, had as 
prudently agreed to the arrangement made for him by his minis¬ 
ters ! What has been the consequence of this excessive anxiety 
to secure our seamen ?—Why, that your service has lost more 
sailors in one year of embargo, than it would have lost in ten 
years of impressment. 

But, Sir, in this lies the secret—a secret I will dare to pro¬ 
nounce. Your President never meant to have a treaty with Great 
Britain . If he had intended it he would have taken the treaty of 
the 31st of December, 1806. If he had intended it he would 
never have fettered the commissioners with sine qua nons which 
were insuperable. 

It was an invariable article in the instructions, to form no treaty 
unless the claim to search merchant vessels for deserters was ui- 
terlv abandoned ; this was never expected, and at the arduous crisis 
at which it was insisted upon, it was impossible to expect it. And 
yet rather than temporize on the point, rather than accept the 
actual abandonment of the principle without its formal renuncia¬ 
tion, a treaty, the work of years, negociated by his favorite nvi. 


rnster, and calculated to appease the animosities existing between 
the two nations, is rejected. 

You wD! bear with me, Sir, while I say that this precipitate and 
fatal measure is the cause of all the embarrassments which we 
have felt, which we are feeling, and which we are likely to suffer; 
I ask, why as this treaty rejected ? We are told for two reasons: 

1st. Because it contained no engagement against the impress¬ 
ment of American seamen on board merchant vessels. 

2d. Because of the collateral declaration of the British com¬ 
missioners. that England retained the right to retaliate upon 
France the principles of her Berlin decree, if the United States 
should submit to its execution. 

1 have shewn from the public documents furnished to us by the 
President, the footing upon which our ministers placed the point 
of i mpressments. 

r commissioners considered the assurances given them by 
the British ministers, a better pledge for the safety of our seamen 
than a formal provision in the treaty. But if these assurances 
had even not been given, the treaty would not have compromitted 
our rights or prejudiced our interests on the subject : in the 
mean time it would have induced more friendly relations and pre¬ 
pared both countries lor such further concessions as their mutual 
interest might require. To me it is a matter both novel and sur¬ 
prising to discover in our President this strong and unyielding 
attachment to the highest points of our maritime rights- I had 
thought before, that he was not so friendly to our navy, to our 
merchants, and to our commerce. 

I had thought that he would rather our ships were exchanged 
for farming utensils and our seamen converted into husbandmen. 
But now, Sir, it seems so highly does he value our navigation, that 
he prefers hazarding ali the calamities of war rather than suffer 
one feather to be forcibly plucked from the wing of commerce. 

Can any one believe that our government seriously intended to 
conclude a treaty with England, when our commissioners were in¬ 
structed to make no treaty unless Britain formally consented, that 
our merchant flag should protect every deserter from her navy ? 

The insertion of this sine qua non in the instructions is suffi¬ 
cient to satisfy my mind, that there was no sincerity in the nego- 
/nation which was carried on with the British government. 

We have been asked by the honorable gentleman from Virginia,, 
(Mr. Giles) whether it can be imagined, that such men as King, 
Monroe and Pinkney would have colluded with the executive, or if 
they would not have borne evidence of his insincerity, if such had 
been the fact. Mr. King, he tells us, is a federalist to whom we 
have lately given proof of confidence and attachment. Mr. Mon¬ 
roe he represents of a disposition lately not to be guilty of con¬ 
cealment through affection for the administration, and Mr. Pink¬ 
ney is said also to be a federalist. 

All this the gentleman may take as true.—But Mr. King Sir, 
was never engaged in this negotiation-—and as to Mr. Monroe 


9 


and Mr. Pinkney, I most clearly acquit them of any collusion with 
the President; because so far from colluding with him, they have 
acted against his secret and (expressinstructions Suflfely 1 have no 
reason to doubt the sincere disposition of these gentlemen, to 
make a treaty with England, when they concluded one under the 
responsibility of acting against their orders. No, my charge of 
insincerity against the executive is founded upon the documents 
a long time secret, now public, and upon the nature of the objec¬ 
tions which have uniformly obstructed the adjustment of our dif¬ 
ferences with Britain. 

The second impediment to the ratification of the treaty, was the 
declaration of lords Holland and Auckland which accompanied it. 
What did this paper impose upon us ? Resistance to the Berlin 
decree : and will you permit me to ask, whether it was ever your 
intention to submit to that decree ; you do not mean to submit to 
the orders in council, and does not the Berlin decree go to the 
extent of those orders ? Are you better prepared, or more dispos¬ 
ed to submit to France than to England ? No, 1 hope we shall 
agree to fight before we consent that either of those powers shall 
give laws to the ocean. 

I know at one time it was pretended, that the Berlin decree 
was designed only as a municipal regulation ; municipal when it 
declared England and her dependencies in a state of blockade, and 
their manufactures and produce liable to capture. It is true that the 
minister of the United States in France, got some such explana¬ 
tion of the decree from the French minister of marine.—He did 
not consider it as derogating from the treaty of 1800 , between 
France and the United States. But when the emperor is applied 
to, by the grand judge, his answer is u that since he had not 
thought proper to express any exception in his decree there is no 
ground to make any in the execution, with respect to any thing 
whatsoever.” When the minister of marine was applied to for his 
construction of the decree, he gave his opinion, but affected not to 
be the proper organ of communication on the subject. In this you 
see that craft and force were both united for the most destructive 
execution of the decree. 

The decree was allowed to sleep for nearly a vear—a public 

minister delivers his opinion that it was not to infract our treaty_ 

and, after our property, to an immense amount, is allured by 
these deceitful appearances into French ports, his imperial ma¬ 
jesty declares, in effect, through his minister of justice, that the 
treaty with the United States was not expressed as an exception 
in the decree, and therefore its provisions were to form no ob¬ 
struction to its execution. So, Sir, we have probably lost some 
millions of dollars by our anxiety to consider this decree as a mu¬ 
nicipal regulation. Suppose, however, it had not designed what 

its terms so plainly express,—the blockade of the British isles._. 

In such case, what embarrassment would our government have 
incurred by agreeing to the proposition ol the Englisl 'commis¬ 
sioners, to resist the decree if executed against our neutral rights ? 

If France had confined the execution ol the decree to her own 
ports, Britain could not have complained of the execution of her 

2 


10 


own law, within her own jurisdiction, and we should have had 
nothing to which we were to oppose resistance. But suppose the 
decree had>been executed on the ocean, and you had become 
bound to oppose its execution by force—would your undertaking 
have been greater than the offer you lately made to England, in 
case she would repeal her orders in council ? 

I shall hereafter have occasion to view this subject in another 
point of light; but at present i ask, did not Mr. Pinkney mean 
to tell Mr. Canning, under his instructions from the President, 
that if Great Britain would repeal her orders in council, the Unit¬ 
ed Slates would resist the execution of the French decrees ?— 
Tins is stated in the letter of Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, of 
the 23d of August. 1808, and admitted, as it is not denied, in the 
letter of Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning of the 8th of October, in 
the same year. Your government, then, would now agree to the 
terms which they so indignantly repelled when first proposed to 
them, and on the ground of which, in part, they refused the trea¬ 
ty which their ministers had negociated. It would seem then 
that no other material ground remains for the rejection of the 
treaty, than the want of a formal clause to secure our merchant 
seamen against impressment. 

Is it your intention ever to have a treaty with Britain, or arc 
the nations always to continue in a state of strife and contention? 
You were offered the treaty of 1794, and you refused it. Messrs. 
Monioe and Pinkney negociate a treaty in 1806. The President 
rejects it, and insists on a point in the most obnoxious form, which 
he knows will never be conceded, and without the concession of 
which, no treaty is ever to be made. Does all this look like a sin¬ 
cere disposition to adjust our differences with England ? 

It is of importance, Mr. President, to consider, in the late ne- 
gociation, who were the men in power in the respective countries. 
Can our President expect ever to see an English administration 
more disposed to treat upon favorable terms with this country, 
than the Fox administration ? The name of Fox is the most 
g ateful English name that is known to an American ear. From 
my childhood I have heard that Fox was the friend of America. 
He was the early champion of our rights, when Britain first at¬ 
tempted to deprive us of them. His voice was always raised in 
our favor, in opposition to the power of the crown. Fox was at 
the head of the ancient whig interest of England, and a firm sup¬ 
porter of the principles of freedom. He was, too, a philanthro¬ 
pist. and deemed in sentiment, by some, a citizen of the world. 
He was additionally, Sir, a French citizen, as well as our worthy 
President. 

I hope it will not be thought that I mention with any invidious 
view, this last circumstance—I state it only for the material pur 
pose of shewing the community ©f character between these great 
men, which recommended them to the fraternization of the French 
people. If Mr. Jefferson was not willing to accept the treat) 
which Mr. Fox offered him, from what administration in England 
can he ever expect a better ? And may I not ask also if be can 
look to other men in the United States in whom he will have more 


11 


confidence, for their skill and integrity, than in thoscr whom he 
employed in the late negotiation. We have all heard that Mr. 
Monroe was his early and bosom friend, and we have all seen that 
he has been his favorite minister. 

Let us also not forget the time when the treaty was concluded— 
no time could have been more propitious ; it was at the moment 
when England was sinking under the triumphs of her adversary. 
Bonaparte had just broken to pieces the power of Prussia, driven 
the Russians to their frontier, and converted their emperor from 
an enemy into an ally. If you are not satisfied with the terms 
which England was willing to grant you at a moment of depres¬ 
sion, can you look for better when she has less to fear from your 
enmity, or to hope from your friendship ? 

You find, Sir, that your President was favored by every circum¬ 
stance in the negociation of the treaty which he finally rejected. 

It is not a little remarkable that he should have undertaken to 
reject this treaty without consulting the Senate, his constitutional 
advisers. He was in possession of a copy of the treaty while the 
Senate were in session—they were not allowed to see it: he 
would not trust their opinions upon it. They might have approv¬ 
ed it ; and the responsibility would have been still greater to have 
rejected it after they had agreed to it. You will pardon me for 
speaking plainly—it is my duty to express my conviction, though 
I may happen to be wrong. 

To me it has always appeared that your President was taken by 
surprize when he found a British treaty laid at his door. His in¬ 
structions to his ministers precluded the possibility of a treaty, and 
it never entered his head that they would have been daring enough 
to conclude a treaty against his orders. But the ministers having 
obtained what|they considered the substance, disregarded the form, 
and sent a treaty as little looked for, as desired. 

1 do not mean to contend that the President was bound to lay 
this treaty before the Senate, but in exercising the power to reject 
it without their advice, he took upon himself a great responsibility, 
and is answerable for all the consequences of an act exclusively his 
own. To this act, in my opinion, may be attributed the present 
embarrassments of your country. Had the treaty been accepted* 
our trade pvould have nourished as heretofore, and with it our agri¬ 
culture, manufactures, and the fisheries. But it pleased our chief 
magistrate to reject it, and every day has since added to the gloom 
which has spread over our country. 

In this condition was the state of our affairs when an unexpect¬ 
ed event occurred, calculated [to inflame to the highest pitch the 
animosity of our citizens against the British government. I al¬ 
lude to the attack of the Leopard upon the Chesapeake, in June, 
1807. In relation to this outrage the people of America felt but 
one sentiment. A more wanton, flagitious, and perfidious act 
was never perpetrated. It is an act which America never will nor 
ought to forgive, till it is expiated by adequate satisfaction. But 
stiil, Sir, we must restrain our indignation while we inquire whose 
act it was, and who is answerable for it. The material inquiry 
is, was it or has it become g the act of the British government ? 


The British minister, as soon as the news of the occurrence 
• reached him, voluntarily and unasked, declared.that it was unau¬ 
thorised by the government. He disavowed it in parliament, and. 
the king himself confirmed the disavowal. 

It rested then as the act of admiral Berkeley. The nation how¬ 
ever were bound to make us satisfaction for the injury done us by 
their public servant. If they refuse adequate satisfaction they 
adopt the act. The government were sensible of this obligation 
and they took steps to comply with it. They sent a special mi¬ 
nister for the so!6 purpose of making reparation for the injury we 
had suffered. This minister we received, and agreed to consider 
the outrage which had been committed, as .the act of Berkeley. 
Considered as the act of the government, it would have been an act 
of open war. You commence a negociation as to the terms of re* 
paration ; but here the same spirit which rejected the treaty, baf¬ 
fles every effort to accommodate this new cause of offence. 

When informed of the attack upon one of our public vessels by 
a British man of war under the orders of an admiral, our govern¬ 
ment had reason to apprehend that no individual, however high in 
rank, would have hazarded so daring an outrage without the au¬ 
thority of his government* 

With this view, and to preserve peace and tranquillity in our 
harbours, we may consider the President as justified in issuing his 
proclamation, interdicting the entrance of British armed ships into 
the waters of the United States. But, Sir, the moment it was as¬ 
certained that the act of Berkeley was unauthorised-; so soon as 
the government had solemnly disavowed it and offered reparation, 
the proclamation ought to have been withdrawn. Are you per 
mitted to punish a nation for the acts of its subjects in which it 
does not participate ? The law and the practice of civ ilized nations 
on this point is explicit and uniform. When the subject of one 
pow'er offendsagainst the sovereignty of another, this will not jus¬ 
tify retaliation upon other subjects of the same power with the one 
who offended. It has uniformly been our own doctrine, and it is 
the common interest of mankind to maintain it, that in such case 
you must apply to the sovereign of the party ofi’ending, and ab¬ 
stain from any act of hostility till he refuses you reparation. This 
course our government did not pursue ; for the act of an indivi¬ 
dual they retaliated against his nation. 

Upon the grounds which have been stated, you may excuse the 
issuing of the proclamation ; but what excuse is there for its con¬ 
tinuance, when we acknowledge ourselves, in treating for repara¬ 
tion, that the act complained of is the act of an individual, and not 
of his government ? 

A proclamation like the one issued, without adequate cause, was 
a breach of neutrality, and a just cause of war. For to admit into 
your ports and grant succour to the armed ships of one belligerent, 
while you exclude those of the other, is not consistent with that 
impartiality which belligerents are entitled to claim from neutrals. 
The point was so understood, and so felt by the British govern¬ 
ment—and they required, as they had a right to do, that as they 
had not committed the act complained of, that the proclamation. 


13 


which had an operation or appearance of hostility against them, 
should be recalled. If they refused reparation, we had a right to 
redress ourselves—but had we a right to take the redress into our 
own hands, and at the same time to require them t<? make us re¬ 
paration ? When you ask justice, you must expect to do it. A na¬ 
tion should be as ready to perform its duties, as to insist upon its 
rights. The British government had given sufficient evidence of 
a disposition to grant satisfaction for the injury done us, by sending 
to the country a special minister for the purpose;—that minister 
was instructed to make voluntary reparation, but to grant none 
under the coercion of the proclamation. In his first communica¬ 
tion to the secretary of state, he informed him that his powers did 
not allow him to make reparation, unless the proclamation w’as 
withdrawn. The affair was then managed with sufficient adroit¬ 
ness to catch the popularity of the country, when it was know n that 
the proclamation must be first withdrawn, its revocation and the 
reparation, were proposed by- the secretary as simultaneous acts. 
Why was this proclamation so tenaciously insisted on? If you 
had revoked it, and the reparation offered was deemed insufficient, 
you would have had no difficulty in renewing it. It is no task to 
our President to issue ^proclamation: atmosMve contend only 
for a point of etiquette, a thing important perhaps in a monarchy, 
but very little respected among us republicans. Give me leave to 
say, that in this negotiation, I soon became persuaded that the dif¬ 
ference in question, was not to be settled by itself, but was to stand 
open in < the general account. If there had been a sincere desire 
to settle it, the paltry measure of the proclamation would not 
have formed an obstacle for a moment. 

I have here a new and great proof that the executive is not sin¬ 
cerely desirous of a full and friendly settlement of all differences 
with England. It may be difficult to trace the motive which go¬ 
verns—but I can plainly discover the same spirit now, which 
agitated the nation in 1795 :—a spirit then subdued by the mighty 
influence of Washington, but which has since risen with incrc%s- 
ed strength, and now dominates. 

I consider, Sir, that the measures of the administration have 
been not only insincere, but extremely feeble ; they will not set¬ 
tle their differences with England, and yet have not courage open¬ 
ly to quarrel with her ; they pass a non-importation act to punish 
the impressment of seamen and the aggressions upon our carrying 
trade ; they exclude by proclamation, British armed ships from 
our waters, to avenge the outrage on the Chesapeake : and what 
benefit to ourselves or detriment to our adversary have these mea¬ 
sures produced ? They are calculated to increase the animosity be¬ 
tween the nations, but I know f of no other effect they can produce. 
So far, indeed, have they been from constraining Britain to accede 
to our terms, that they have rendered her more regardless of our 
rights and interests. She has since given us new and more feel¬ 
ing causes of complaint, by her orders in council of the 7th of 
January, and the 11th of November, 1807. These orders take 
from us the trade of nearly all Europe. They are the coun¬ 
terpart of the French decrees. God forbid that I should justify 


14 


them ! I will never admit that France or England have a right 
to make laws for the ocean : nor shall I ever hesitate, when t ey 
insist upon the execution of such laws, to declare myself lor war, 
I am as free as any gentleman in this Senate to protest against 
submission to the decrees of France, or the orders of England ; 
but is not submission to the decrees as disgraceful as submission 
to the.orders? The gentleman from Virginia said nothing of the 
decrees,—nothing of a war with France—his resentment wae 
confined to Britain. 

We have, Sir, to choose our enemy between these two nations. 
We are hardly equal to a contention against both at the same 
time. 

How does the case stand in relation to them ?—The emperor 
first issues his Berlin decree, interdicting our trade to England 
and her colonies. England then gave us notice, if you allow 
France to prevent your trading with us, we will not suffer you to 
trade with France. If you are tame enough to submit to a French 
decree, you will surely not be too proud to yield to a British or¬ 
der. Assure us that you will resist the execution of the decree, 
and we will not retort its principles upon you. This our govern¬ 
ment declined doing, and left England to pursue her ow*n course. 
Her government then issues the order of the 11th of November, 
retaliating the Berlin decree. I do not defend this order; but if 
the administration had resisted, as they ought to have done, the 
Berlin decree, we should not have seen the order. What now 
is to be done ? England insists on her orders, as a measure of re¬ 
taliation against France. Prevail on France to repeal her de¬ 
crees, or agree to resist the execution of them ; and if England 
then executes her orders, I will be as free as any man to go to 
war with her. 

No such course has been taken, but what have we done? Laid 
an embargo . And for what purpose did we lay the embargo l 
Th is is a subject of conjecture to some ; but our government tells 
us, # it was to preserve our ships, our sailors, and our mercantile 
capital. Some have said to preserve them from the operation of 
the orders in council. When the embargo was laid the orders in 
council were not known in this country. 

Of this fact I want no stronger proof, no stronger can exist, 
than that the President in his message to Congress, in which 
he recommends the embargo, says not a word of these orders in 
council. No, the embargo was not produced by the orders in coun¬ 
cil, nor by any thing which we heard from England, but by news 
which had then been recently received from France. 

We are told the embargo was to save our ships, our sailors, and 
mercantile capital. I do not believe that such was its object, but 
if such were its purpose, we have been miserably disappointed. 
The embargo for a short period, might have been a prudent mea¬ 
sure. As a step of precaution, to collect our seamen and mercan¬ 
tile capital, I should never have complained of it. But u is insult¬ 
ing to common sense, to propose it as a scheme of permanent se¬ 
curity, as it must daily consume, and finally annihilate the objects 
of its preservation. Your ships once in, and the danger known. 


15 


you should have left your merchants to their own discretion. 
They would have calculated the profits and the perils, and been de¬ 
termined by the balance of the account. No class of society is 
more capable of taking care of itself. 

It is said we have preserved our seamen. The President has 
as gravely repeated this remark in his message, as he recommend¬ 
ed to us to devise means to dispose of our surplus revenue, at a 
moment when it was evident that the situation of the country 
would drain the treasury of its last dollar. 

Where are y» ur sailors ? They are not to be seen in your ports. 
One half th; t .v< •' employed by you have passed into foreign ser¬ 
vice, and many ti -m »n, are to be found begging in your roads 
and at your doors 

As to . i p and mercantile capital, the one tenth part of tin 
loss from decay and waste and want of employment, would have 
paid for an insurance against every danger to which they would 
hav* posed. It is not my intention, Mr. President, to de¬ 

tain you v i»n any details on this subject, as I should be compelled 
to repea die same things which have been stated by other gentle¬ 
men on a former occasion. But there are some general views of 
the subject not undeserving of notice, which yet remain to be ta¬ 
ken. 

If the embargo were ever a measure of precaution it certainly 
has long lost that character. As a measurt of coercion, it was 
hopeless unless completely executed. If the party to be coerced 
was partially supplied, the object was defeated. 

Now I ask you, Sir, if your government ought not to have been 
acquainted with its own powers, its own people, and its own si¬ 
tuation well enough to have known that it was impossible for it to 
confine the whole produce of the country within its limits for any 
length of time ? Ought they not to have foreseen the vast temp¬ 
tations which have arisen and presented themselves, as well to our 
own citizens as to foreigners, to combine in order to break or 
elude your laws ? Ought they not to have known that with our 
extent of coast and frontiers, with our numerous waters, that a 
wretched gun boat navy, aided even by ten thousand regulars, were 
not capable of covering our borders and shutting up the number¬ 
less outlets of the country ? Could they expect that patriotism was 
to feed and to clothe the people of the north ; or that thousands 
would submit to starve in order to contribute to the success of an 
experiment ? 

We all know that the opposition to the embargo in the eastern 
states is not the opposition of a political party, or of a few dis¬ 
contented men, but the resistance of the people to a measure which 
they feel as oppressive and regard as ruinous. The people of this 
country arc not to be governed by force, but by affection and con¬ 
fidence. It is for them we legislate, and if they do not like om 
laws, it is our duty to repeal them. 

It is madness to talk of forcing submission when there is gene¬ 
ral dissatisfaction. Your government is in the hands of the peo¬ 
ple—it has no force but what it derives from them ; and your en¬ 
forcing laws are dead letters when they have once been driven to 
resist your measures. 



16 


It would, Sir, be some consolation, amidst the sufferings which 
this miserable system has caused, if in looking abroad, we could 
discover that the nations who have injured and offended us felt 
its oppression only equally with ourselves. But when we find that 
we have been scourging ourselves for their benefit and amusement, 
when they can tell us with indifference and contempt, that they 
feel for us, but that we must correct our own folly ; instead of 
meeting with the poor comfort which we expected, we are over¬ 
whelmed with accumulated mortification. 

Was this a measure against France? No—the emperor com* 
mends the magnanimous sacrifice which you have made of your 
commerce, rather than submit to British tyranny on the ocean. 

His imperial majesty never approves what he does not like— 
and he never likes what does not comport with his own designs. 

I consider it as admitted that the embargo was intended to co¬ 
erce England ; and the gentleman from Virginia now contends 
that if it had been strictly executed it would have had that effect. 
Nothing has happened that common foresight might not have for- 
seen, The gentleman has read to you, extracts from an English 
pamphlet, published before the embargo was laid, which predicts 
the very evasions of the law, the discontents it would produce, and 
the opposition it would meet wdth, which we have all had the melan¬ 
choly opportunity of witnessing. I know the pamphlet was referred 
to for another purpose—to shew that British gold or influence had 
corrupted or seduced the Vermontese before the embargo was im- - 
posed. The gentleman may believe the fact to be so if he pleases; 
but I say, Sir, that your government here, -with all its means of in¬ 
formation, ought to have known as much about the condition of 
Vermont as a pamphletteer on the other side of the Atlantic. 

It seems now to be admitted, and the fact is too evident to be 
denied, that the embargo has failed in its coercive effect upon Bri¬ 
tain. The want of bread, cotton, or lumber, has neither starved 
her subjects, nor excited them to insurrection. Some gentlemen 
have had shrewdness enough to discover an effect in an English 
price current, which might to be sure, have been owing to the 
embargo, or might have been produced by the operation on the 
market of some private speculations • But it has enriched Canada, 
and has taught the islands their policy and ability to live with¬ 
out us. 

Would to God, Mr. President, that the embargo had done as lit¬ 
tle evil to ourselves as it has done to foreign nations 1 

It is ourselves who are the victims of the miserable experiment. 
Your treasury will lose at least fifteen millions of dollars, and your 
country in addition not less than forty. This tax has not been so 
much felt, though it has not in truth been less paid, because the 
embargo has not taken the money out of our pockets, but only 
prevented it going into them. This measure has beenlnot only 
ruinous to our interests, but it is hostile to the genius of our go¬ 
vernment. It calls for an increase of your regular army, and a 
vast augmentation of your military force. Ten thousand bayon¬ 
ets were not sufficient to enfore it, but fifty thousand volunteers 
(as I have seen by a bill on the table) were to be invited to assist. 
In its execution. 


17 


That measure of an administration which arms citizen against 
citizen, or requires the soldier to act against the citizen, is bane¬ 
ful to liberty. If persevered in, there would soon be an end of free 
government. 

The effect is also to be depreated, upon the spirit of your mili¬ 
tary. They are called upon to execute laws they are unable to 
construe, and in obeying their orders are exposed to the commis¬ 
sion of murder. 

Your naval forces are sent out to cruise, not for enemies, but 
for defenceless fellow citizens, and they return to boast not of a 
gallant battle, but of a miserable seizure which may bring poverty 
upon some wretched family in their own country. 

It has been often said in defence of the embargo, that the nation 
had nothing left but that measure, submission or war. Can you 
distinguish between the embargo and submission? Can you 
pretend to say that it isa voluntary self-restriction imposed as a mat¬ 
ter of choice? Can it be denied that it has been forced upon us by 
the conduct of one or of both of the belligerents ? And with a 
full knowledge of the fact, can you describe it as any thing but 
vile abject submission ? France tells you, you shall not trade to 
Britain, you obey her—Britain then tells you, you shall not trade 
to France, you submit. You have not resisted the decrees or orders, 
but havecomplied with the object of both. We have borne thebur- 
then of the embargo till it has almost broke our backs, and even when 
we are sinking under it, we pretend to say, it was no task to bear it. 
In this case it is then said, there only remained submission or war. 
—Submission I put out of the case. I trust in God it never enter¬ 
ed into the head of one American! But I deny that war is neces¬ 
sarily the alternative ; and I never will admit it, till I see sincere 
efforts made to accommodate our differences with England. The 
President in his message at the opening of Congress, would give 
us the impression that Britain had refused the last and the fairest 
offer it was in the power of our government to make, in order to 
preserve peace. It will be important for us to understand the na¬ 
ture and extent of' that otfer. The proposition no doubt was made 
by Mr. Pinkney, in conformity to his instructions. To avoid error, 
I will take the liberty of reading to the Senate the words of Mr. 
Pinkney to Mr. Canning on the subject, in his letter of the 23d of 
August last-— 

“ I had the honor to state to you, Sir, that it was the intention of 
the President, in case Great Britain repealed her orders, as regard¬ 
ed the United States, to exercise the power vested in him by the 
act of the last session of Congress, entitled “ An act to authorise 
the President of the United States under certain conditions, to sus¬ 
pend the operation of the act laying an embargo on all ships and 
vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the se¬ 
veral supplementary acts thereto,” by suspending the embargo 
law and its supplements as regards Great Britain. I am authorised 
to give you this assurance in the most formal manner.” 

Now, Sir, what is the amount of this boasted offer ? Nothing more 
than the assurance of our minister of an intention of the President 
to remove the embargo in case the orders in council were actually 
repealed. Great B. was to repeal her orders, allow the Presideu 

•5 


18 


to make the most of that act with her enemy and trust to his exe¬ 
cuting his good intention when it should suit his good pleasure. The 
offer to England related only to the embargo, when this experimental 
measure so far from being injurious to her, was adding to her 
wealth and strength. It leaves her navigation without a rival on the 
ocean, and has restored to her more seamen, than she could have 
impressed in ten years. Well may Mr. Canning say, there is no 
assignable relation, between the removal of the embargo, and the 
repeal of the orders in council. 

The President had instructed his minister to assure the British 
government, that the embargo was designed solely as a municipal 
regulation, and not as an act in any degree hostile to them. 

The orders in council were a measure of hostility against France ; 
and we offer to revoke a municipal regulation operating in Tavor 
of Britain, if she will relieve us from the pressure of a measure 
adopted againit her enemy But let me ask was there any offer 
made to rescind the proclamation or to repeal the non-importation 
law ? Two measures much more offensive and hostile to Great Bri¬ 
tain, than the embargo. With these laws in force, it was a mere 
mockery to offer the removal of the embargo. What more proof 
do we want, than this transaction affords, that the executive has 
not been sincere in his endeavors to restore a good understanding 
between this country and England. And therefore it is that I 
contend that war is not unavoidable with that nation. I confess 
Sir I should think a war with England, one of the greatest 
evils which could befall this country, not only from the sufferings 
which it would inflict upon it ; but also from the fatal connexion 
with France to which it would give birth. 

' We have seen what has been the course of the government in re¬ 
lation to Britain ; and I will beg a few moments to examine what 
has been its conduct in regard to France? The last proposition 
made to Britain is well known—the documents fully disclose it; but 
what at the same time was proposed to the French government? 
This we know little of. We have not been furnished with the 
cor respondence with that government, on the subject. The trans¬ 
action is covered with a dark and impenetrable veil. The Presi¬ 
dent tells us in his message that the same proposals w r ere not made 
to the two belligerents, and it would seem from what he hints, 
that the offer to France in case she repealed her decrees, was to 
join her in the war against England. It cannot be denied, that 
we have lost more by the spoliations, and have been more harras- 
sed under the arbitrary edicts of France, than of England. By the 
treaty of 1800, we gave up more than twenty millions of dollars 
which had been seized, and against all right, confiscated in France. 
Since that time we arc officially informed, that an amount nearly 
equal has been seized, and confiscated or sequestered. She has won- 
tonly burnt our ships on the ocean and made no compensation. Her 
Berlin decree ot the 21st of Nov. [806, commenced the present 
system of outrage upon neutral rights. In effect it interdicts all 
trade with England and her colonies. This is followed by the 
Milan decree of the 17th of December, 1807. Under this edict an 
American vessel which has been searched* or visited against her 


19 


will, by a British cruizer or is proceeding to, or returning from 
England is liable to be captured as good prize- And finally, to 
complete this monstrous system, comes the Bayonne decree, the 
17th of April, 1808, which declares every American vessel found 
upon the ocean, liable to seizure and confiscation. Opposed to 
these accumulated violations of our neutral rights, what steps has 
our government taken against France? Have they passed anon- 
importation act, issued a proclamation, or imposed an embargo? 
The last measure is general in its terms, but is avowedly against 
England alone. No, they have contented themselves with memo¬ 
rializing, remonstrating, and pretesting. Against England we 
took every step short of war, against France we have employed 
nothin but gentle words. Has your government then shewn an 
equal resentment against the wrongs suffered from these two 
powers ? 

It may be from the habit of enduring; but we do not feel an ag¬ 
gression from France with the same quickness and sensibility that 
we do from England. Let us see, Sir, the same conduct observed 
with regard to both belligerents ; let us see the impediments to a 
friendly settlement with Britain removed; let us witness a sincere 
effort made, to regulate the intercourse of the two nations by a 
treaty formed on principles of mutual concession, and equal inte¬ 
rest and I will answer for it, if Great Britain persists in her orders, 
that you will find no division in this country on the question 
whether we shall submit to them or resist their execution. 

Permit me, Mr. President, to detain you a few moments long¬ 
er. I am sensible that I have already trespassed upon the indul¬ 
gence of the Senate, and I shall hasten to conclude the remarks 
which I have thought it of importance to make upon the resolu¬ 
tion which has been submitted. 

The objects of the resolution are embargo, non-intercourse and 
non-importation as to England and France, and their colonies. 
The existing embargo is to be repealed only in part—one half of 
the channel of your rivers is opened, the other is to be embargoed; 
and vessels may proceed to sea, but they must not pass through 
the embargoed waters. I can well conceive if one port in the 
United States being embargoed and the others open; but of an 
embargo which gives the right to every vessel in a harbor to 
leave it, I confess I have no comprehension. I should have sup 
posed that the honorable gentleman might have ventured to repeal 
the embargo generally, and trusted to the provisions on the sub¬ 
ject of non intercourse to accomplish what seems to be the object 
in view, in partially retaining it. Sir, it is a strange infatuation 
that the name of this odious measure should be preserved, when 
the thing itself is abandoned. 

And what, Sir, are we to gain by a non-intercourse? It can 
never benefit the nation—it is nothing more than a part of that 
miserable musqueto system, which is to sting and irritate England 
into acts of hostility. I have no doubt she sees the object, and 
she will take care not to give us the advantage which would be 
derived from war being commenced on her part. But 1 ask what 
will be the effect of non-intercourse ? I see no other than that it 


20 


will require two voyages instead of one to transport our produce 
to the markets of the interdicted countries. You carry your mer¬ 
chandise to Lisbon, and there deposit it ; and from thence it is 
carried in foreign ships to England and France. Who will pay 
the expense of this circuity of transportation ? The United States. 
It will be deducted from the price of your produce. Can the gen¬ 
tle 'ian contrive no system which will operate with less severity 
upon ourselves than upon those whom he deems our enemies? If 
the resolution has no design, but what is apparent on the face of 
it, ii is evident that its sole operation is against ourselves. Its in¬ 
evitable effect will be to reduce the profit of what we have to sell, 
and to increase the expense of what we have to purchase. I can 
perceive also, Sir, that it will be a measure of unequal pressure 
upon different sections of the country ; and that its weight will 
fall heaviest upon that part of the union already too much galled 
to suffer any addition to its burthen. The lumber, the live stock, 
the fish, and the articles of common exportation to the eastward 
will not bear the expense of double freights. Will they thank you 
for repealing the embargo, and adopting a substitute which con¬ 
tinues to shut the ports of the north while it opens those of the 
south. Will they thank you for a measure which deprives them 
even of the miserable consolation of having fellow sufferers in their 
distress. If this resolution be adopted you do nothing to heal the 
wounds which you have inflicted. If New England loses her 
trade she will derive no comfort from its being under a non-inter¬ 
course, and not under an embargo law. 

It is a part of the resolution, that we are to import no produce 
or merchandise from England, or France, or their colonies. D® 
you expect, Sir, that a law to this effect could ever be executed, in 
time of peace ? As to the manufactures of England she can make 
them the manufactures of any country in Europe ; she will give 
you the exact marks, and stamps, and packages of any place to 
which your trade is open, and she will defy you to distinguish her 
fabrics from those they attempt to imitate. But, Sir, the conse¬ 
quence chiefly to be dreaded from such a measure, would be 
the practice of smuggling, to which it would certainly give birth. 
Can you expect in one moment to change the habits of a whole 
country ? We know, Sir, the power of habit: it is a second na¬ 
ture. Can an act of Congress instantly change your nature ?—No, 
Sir—they who can afford it, will have what they have been ac¬ 
customed to. They will pay any price for articles, without which, 
perhaps, they can scarcely exist. Smuggling must follow—and 
will follow with forgery and perjury in its train. It is the honor 
and character of your trading people which now protects you 
from smuggling. Break down this sentiment, habituate them to 
perjury, destroy the disgrace attached to this violation of your 
law, and you lose half the security and means you have in the 
collection of your revenue. 

The complaint has been made, that while we find fault with 
the measures proposed, we refuse to point out the course we 
would have the administration to pursue. I have, Sir, no hesi¬ 
tation on my part to disclose my opinion, or to offer the humble 


21 


assistance of my advice on the subject. In a few words I will 
tell you what I would do :—Place England and France upon the 
same footing, by repealing the non-importation act, rescinding 
the proclamation, and repealing the embargo. Then ask for, 
and insist upon adequate reparation for the affair of the Chesa¬ 
peake. Make a treaty with Great Britain, if as good terms could 
be obtained as those in either of the treaties which have been re¬ 
fused.—Agree to resist the execution of the,Berlin decree, and if 
she afterwards persisted in her orders in couhcil, declare war 
against her. Such would be my course. War would be the last 
resort; and I believe, in my conscience, we should never be driven 
to it, if the course were pursued with a sincere disposition to pre¬ 
serve peace. 

Permit me, Sir, to notice one remark of the honorable gentle¬ 
man from Virginia, which had escaped me, and I am done. The 
gentleman told us, that the removal of the embargo was designed 
as a concession to our eastern brethren. I rejoiced to hear this 
sentiment of forbearance. Such sentiments give hopes that the 
ynion may still be preserved. We have been led to the brink of 
a tremendous precipice—another false step, and we shall be lost 
in the abyss. Our safety is in treading back our steps. We 
have lost our way. Some ignis fatuus has beguiled us. There 
is a path of safety and honor—the path the nation once trod. Let 
us endeavor to regain it, and invoke the spirit of Washington to 
lead us once more into it 1 





* 

• ' '• ' A 











/ 












V 





























SS^^mSSSSS 

Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnoloc 

WORLD IBUW, »COLUCnONSp RBER ; 


'^SSSSS^ 
8SsE5r*"’« 
















